WRITTEN QUESTION E-0908/02 by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Duty charged retroactively on fisheries products from Norway.
Date: 2002-04-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, customs regulations, fishery product, import levy

C 301 E/64

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.12.2002

Kingdom aimed at adopting of a Council Framework Decision on the application of the principle of
mutual recognition to financial penalties (3). The proposed Framework Decision provides that a fine
imposed by a court in one Member State must be recognised and enforced in other Member States. Fines
imposed for road traffic offences by Member States are often administrative penalties rather than criminal
penalties. If the Framework Decision were to cover administrative fines, and this issue is currently being
discussed, it should go a long way towards resolving the problem of cross-border enforcement of fines and
thus eliminate the need for differential treatment of residents and non-residents.

(1) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001.
(2) Case C-29/95 [1997] ECR I-285.
(3) OJ C 278, 2.10.2001.

(2002/C 301 E/069)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0908/02

by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 April 2002)

Subject: Duty charged retroactively on fisheries products from Norway

Problems have arisen in the past year in Germany with the charging of customs duty on Norwegian
fisheries products. German customs authorities have begun to suspect in the course of checks on quantities
that Norway could have over-fished its quotas (in particular of cod), and are now demanding payment of
the difference between the concessionary (0,9 %) and standard (7,5 %) rates. These demands are being
served on German importers or carriers although the latter cannot rightly be regarded as liable for
payment, since they are not directly involved in the import-export trade as such. The traders concerned
now confront serious economic difficulties in the face of demands running to several tens of thousand
euro. The result is that affected traders are now putting pressure on their suppliers in Norway to export via
Denmark or the Netherlands, because customs arrangements in those countries appear to be organised
differently and retroactive duties or securities are not applied.

On the basis of what directive is customs duty being charged retroactively or the lodging of securities

1.
demanded?

2. What approaches are taken by other EU Member States to applying customs provisions compared
with Germany?

3. Who is responsible for supervising compliance with such provisions?

4.

Can the Commission see any potential here for equality of treatment in all Member States?

Are there currently any negotiations or agreements between Norway and the Commission that would

5.
rule out retroactively charging duty in this way?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2002)

The Commission is not aware of the situation described by the Honourable Member.

1.
Article 8 of Council Decision 2000/597/EC, Euratom of 29 September 2000 on the system of the
European Communities’ own resources (1), provides that import duties, as own resources of the EC, are
levied by the Member States in accordance with their national
laws, regulations and administration
provisions, which are amended if necessary to conform to Community legislation. Thus it is the Member
States which are responsible for collecting import duties.

5.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 301 E/65

The Community Customs Code (2) and its implementing provisions (3)
impose uniform rules on the
Member States, including rules on the establishment and collection of import duties, which persons are to
pay the said duties and the conditions for lodging security.

As a rule, when customs authorities come across instances of fraud or irregularities in the course of post-
clearance controls that affect the amount of duty payable, they take appropriate action to account for the
missing duty in accordance with Article 220(1) of the Community Customs Code. By carrying out checks
in the Member States, the Commission ensures that the customs authorities discharge their responsibilities.

It

is up to the Member States to make sure that

2. and 3.
their customs administrations apply
Community legislation properly, including the Community Customs Code and its implementing provisions.
When the Commission finds that rules are not applied properly in a Member State, it takes the appropriate
steps to remedy the situation.

4.
At present the Commission does not have reason to believe that traders receive unequal treatment
from one Member State to another. If, however, the Honourable Member has relevant information on the
subject, the Commission would like to be informed of it so that it can rectify the situation.

5.
The Commission confirms that there are currently no negotiations between itself and Norway with a
view to excluding post-clearance collection of import duties legally due in the situation cited by the
Honourable Member. It also draws attention to the fact that it does not negotiate measures necessary for
duties legally due.

(1) OJ L 253, 7.10.2000.
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302,
19.10.1992), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of
16 November 2000 (OJ L 311, 12.12.2000).

(3) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 253, 11.10.1993), as last
amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 444/2002 of 11 March 2002 (OJ L 68, 13.3.2002).

(2002/C 301 E/070)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0909/02

by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 April 2002)

Subject: Whale catches in the Faroe Islands

As reported by nature protection organisations,
large numbers of pilot whales are killed every year
between June and August in the coastal waters off the Faroe Islands. The greater part of the animals killed
are thrown back into the sea.

In accordance with the International Whaling Commission (IWC) Moratorium, whale hunting (cid:1) with some
narrowly restricted exceptions (cid:1) is banned. The European Union is not a member of the IWC, but holds
observer status. Under Directive 92/43/EWG of 21 May 1992 (1), all EU Member States are required to
introduce a stringent protection scheme for all species of whales.

The Faroe Islands are part of the Kingdom of Denmark, but enjoy self-government and are not a Member
of the EU.

Is the European Commission aware that large numbers of pilot whales are killed in the Faroe Islands every
year?